One World, Many Theories- Stephen M. Walt Summary

8:38 PM Bella Noir Beauty 4 Comments

This chart found in the article is a great synopsis of what the article entails. Walt examines each paradigm and explains why we should not take one approach as the almighty approach. There is something to be learned from each.
"Classical" realists such as Hans Morgenthau and Reinhold Niebuhr believed that states, like human beings, had an innate desire to dominate others, which led them to fight wars. Morgenthau also stressed the virtues of the classical, multipolar, balance-of-power system

"Neorealist" theory, advanced by Kenneth Waltz ignored human nature and focused on the effects of the international system; anarchy would lead weaker states to balancing against more powerful rivals. And contrary to Morgenthau, he claimed that bipolarity was more stable than multipolarity.

Offense-defense theory (Jervis, Quester, Van Evera):

War was more likely when states could conquer each other easily

When defense was easier than offense, security was more plentiful ,incentives to expand declined, and cooperation could blossom

If defense had the advantage, and states could distinguish between offensive and defensive weapons, then states could acquire the means to defend themselves without threatening others

One strand of liberal thought argued that economic inter-dependence would discourage states from using force against each other because warfare would not threaten each side's prosperity.

A second strand, often associated with President Woodrow Wilson, saw the spread of democracy as the key to world peace, based on the claim that democratic states were inherently more peaceful than authoritarian states.

A third, more recent theory argued that international institutions such as the International Energy Agency and the Inter-national Monetary Fund could help overcome selfish state behavior, mainly by encouraging states to forego immediate gains for the greater benefits of enduring cooperation.

Marxism offered both a different explanation for international conflict and a blueprint for fundamentally transforming the existing international order

Orthodox Marxist theory saw capitalism as the central cause of international conflict. Neomarxist "dependency" theory focused on relations between advanced capitalist powers and less developed state. Both of these theories were largely discredited before the Cold War even ended.

The "deconstructionist" approach was openly skeptical of the effort to devise general or universal theories such as realism or liberalism. Proponents emphasized the importance of language and discourse in shaping social outcomes.

Democratic peace theory is a refinement of the earlier claim that democracies were inherently more peaceful than autocratic states

Institutions are now said to facilitate cooperation when it is in each state's interest to do so, but it is widely agreed that they cannot force states to behave in ways that are contrary to the states' own selfish interests

A number of scholars have recently suggested that the "globalization" of world markets, the rise of transnational networks and nongovernmental organizations, and the rapid spread of global communications technology are undermining the power of states and shifting attention away from military security toward economics and social welfare

Constructivists regard the interests and identities of states as a highly malleable product of specific historical processes; constructivism is especially attentive to the sources of change.